Coastal location most valuable
Hats off to the Westview waterfront development committee for sustaining its recommendation to the City of Powell River that the old arena site be rezoned for mixed use and designated accordingly in the official community plan [“Committee eyes mixed use for waterfront lot,” May 15]. This site is arguably one of the potentially most valuable locations on the coast, and this value should be realized by the city and residents by developing it with a mix of civic, commercial and residential uses.
The current library proposal sets a fairly innocuous structure into the bank of Marine Avenue and precludes further development at this location, beyond a parking lot. Instead, if you have to locate a library at this site, build it as an integral part of a smart, elegant multi-use project that enhances that stretch of Marine and serves as an anchor for more redevelopment of that part of town.
And what about the 5,000? Many people signed the “Save Willingdon Beach” petition because they believe this site is not the best location for a new library; others are unable to distinguish between a gravel lot and the beach.
In a democracy we elect leaders, I hope, who can help us through the challenges and opportunities of the future, not pander to the sentimentalities of the past. Now is the time to engage in a thorough and public discussion of the full potential of this site, before that potential is lost to the town forever. That would be the true shame for the community.
Harold Gruber
Zilinsky Road
Community plan raises questions
Powell River’s sustainable official community plan (OCP) presents a remarkable opportunity to plan our future collectively with foresight [“Land-use map contains major differences,” May 22]. Vision ideas were expressed by many participants at neighbourhood public consultation sessions and are recorded on the OCP website. However, I see a large gap between them and what seems to be planned, presented as a zoning map.
Cycling is an example. Cycling is less expensive, generates far fewer greenhouse gases, and has much greater health benefits than motoring. It’s easy to see cycling as more sustainable than driving cars. There are, however, simple reasons for driving instead of cycling. Laziness, lack of skill, need to haul bags of groceries, and municipal roadways that don’t allow cyclists to feel safe in close proximity with motor vehicles, are some. Here is a clear opportunity for sustainability if we personally choose it, but safety of our roadways for cyclists is one simple question we could commit to examining as a community in an OCP. No mention of that exists. Though there are separate maps in what is proposed as transportation network and cycling network, they are nearly identical. Except for Manson Avenue designated as a highway, the maps depict what we now have. Nothing presented encourages cycling—encourages sustainability—apparently just status quo.
Logging is implied for parts of District Lot 450 and lands surrounding Valentine Mountain. Perhaps this is necessary for sustainability here. Does anyone question that? Do we even have any say over it as a community? What really is the big picture here? What is planned? How might this relate to sustainability for our community?
I would suggest the vision ideas for Powell River and our own sustainability charter as excellent places to start looking for what sustainability is for our community. A lot of work might yet be needed to interpret these vision ideas into practice. That brings me back to cycling, a simple place to start. We have to do what we can. We have to start by questioning what that might be. Right now, opportunity is knocking for our community.
Rob Southcott
Gordon Avenue
